• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Women Should Be Allowed in Combat Units, Report Says

dontworrybehappy said:
… It is bred into humans to be "protective" of women. …
Click to expand...

1,181 murders, 232,960 rapes, 4.8 million physical assaults per year make you at the very best, misinformed.¹

I think combat soldiers fight mostly because they “love” the guy next to them. This isn't about sex, it's about loyalty and identity. You don't have to have a penis to fill that bill.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
The main reason no one messes with them is America.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Man or man, or more accurately person for person, Israel has one of if not the best fighting force in the world.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
… Israel has one of the best fighting forces in the world, but the reason I said America, is because the US gives Israel large amounts of military and financial aid, which seriously helps them.
Click to expand...

Which is basically irrelevant to this thread but thanks. What is relevant is the Israeli military is an effective fighting force despite depending on women to provide important contributions to its overall combat capability.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
You've meet men who didn't make it through boot camp because they weren't strong enough? Are you sure? I saw a few of those that had difficulties but they either got washed back or did remedial traning. The only ones I saw thrown out had physical defects missed in the orginal physicals or punched a drill instructor.

I can see being washed out in Airborne, Rangers, Seals, Special Forces etc. but boot camp?
Click to expand...

Yep - simply didn't have the body or physical response desired. . . not all men are capable of gaining adequate musle.

Maybe it's too much stress - who knows.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
I agree that it isn't in human biology for men to protect women. Personally, I blame it on the history of western civ, with women being seen as weak and lower than men and thus needing protection. If this had not occurred, there would likely be a large amount of women who are able to fend for themselves.
Click to expand...


Not exactly accurate.

Until the invention of guns, combat was very physical. Upper body strength, muscle mass, skeletal density and the ability to endure intense exertion while wearing heavy armor were all requirements for soldiers and warriors in primitive times. Very few women (if any, given the lack of modern conditioning methods) could compete with men when combats were fought with warhammers in 50 lbs of full plate armor.

When it comes to fighting with muscle-powered weapons, women are indeed weaker and more fragile than men, and in need of male protection.

Personal firearms are the only thing that really changes that equation (aside from exceptions like the 1 woman in ~50,000 who can actually compete with equally-conditioned men... but even so, in Olympic athletic competition men's records usually exceed women's. We've posted the stats on this before.)
 
I think woman should be able to go into combat, for one week, every month :2razz:
 
Goshin said:
Not exactly accurate.

Until the invention of guns, combat was very physical. Upper body strength, muscle mass, skeletal density and the ability to endure intense exertion while wearing heavy armor were all requirements for soldiers and warriors in primitive times. Very few women (if any, given the lack of modern conditioning methods) could compete with men when combats were fought with warhammers in 50 lbs of full plate armor.

When it comes to fighting with muscle-powered weapons, women are indeed weaker and more fragile than men, and in need of male protection.

Personal firearms are the only thing that really changes that equation (aside from exceptions like the 1 woman in ~50,000 who can actually compete with equally-conditioned men... but even so, in Olympic athletic competition men's records usually exceed women's. We've posted the stats on this before.)
Click to expand...

Does anyone still fight with muscle-powered weapons?
 
kerussll said:
Does anyone still fight with muscle-powered weapons?
Click to expand...


It happens on occasion, yes. I've done it. A buddy of mine killed a man HTH in a tunnel in Viet Nam, also, in a fight involving a hatchet and a knife.

It isn't the norm anymore, of course... but infantry soldiers with m4 rifles commonly hump 50 to 100 lbs or more of ammo and gear on their persons, for miles across rough terrain. Not all men can do that, and considerably fewer women.
 
Goshin said:
It happens on occasion, yes. I've done it. A buddy of mine killed a man HTH in a tunnel in Viet Nam, also, in a fight involving a hatchet and a knife.

It isn't the norm anymore, of course... but infantry soldiers with m4 rifles commonly hump 50 to 100 lbs or more of ammo and gear on their persons, for miles across rough terrain. Not all men can do that, and considerably fewer women.
Click to expand...

Vietnam was a long time ago. You never hear about soldiers fighting like that anymore. No, not all people can carry that weight and hike for miles. Which is why there are physical requirements to be put into combat.
 
Jetboogieman said:
I think woman should be able to go into combat, for one week, every month :2razz:
Click to expand...

The enemy needs to be dealt with with a steady and accurate mind and hand.
PMSing women are just moody, emotional bloated whiners.

Not myself, of course - I'm awesome all the time.
 
If women can go through the same exact training that men do and make it then I see no problem with women serving on the front lines so long as it is voluntary. Israel has already been doing that for several years now and I think that they have proven that women and men can fight along side each other on the front lines with little to no problems.
 
Your Star said:
I am not saying that you do not have that impulse, but you weren't born with it.

And I would need someone with combat experience to confirm this, but I'm assuming that on the battlefield a soldier would resort to their training, not primal instincts
Click to expand...

And, you would assume wrong. It's primal instincts, such as a will to live and camaraderie, and yes, the instinct to be more protective of women than men.

The IDF banned women from serving in combat arms units for a long time, because they noticed that men would fall out of an attack to help a wounded female, quicker than they would a wounded male and it weakened the attack.
 
Redress said:
Because they measure overall fitness level and are not tests to determine ability.
Click to expand...

If a person--male or female--can't do 60 pushups in 2 minutes, then that person probably doesn't have the necessary upper body strength to hump-a-ruck 25 miles and fight a firefight somewhere in between point A and point B.
 
apdst said:
And, you would assume wrong. It's primal instincts, such as a will to live and camaraderie, and yes, the instinct to be more protective of women than men.

The IDF banned women from serving in combat arms units for a long time, because they noticed that men would fall out of an attack to help a wounded female, quicker than they would a wounded male and it weakened the attack.
Click to expand...

The ridiculously HIGH rates of male on female domestic abuse would prove otherwise.
So - which is it - they halt all action to run to the aid of the injured princess or they beat her half to death in the privacy of their own homes?

If I had my way only the toughest most bitchingest 'don't touch me!' women would be anywhere near the battlefield.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
We've debated this before.
Generalization in this regard is the wrong path to take.

*Most* can't handle it (we all agree - *most* don't even join the military because it's not interesting to them so the pool that we're even referring to isn't "all women" - it's a small minority *of women*) - but *some* can handle it without qualm - and if *some* can then these *some* should be permitted to do what they prove capable of doing.

I think women and men should be expected to be on the same level - which would actually reduce the number of women in the military altogether - but if you want to be in and equal then you should be all EQUAL in every regard.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but that crack starts bleeding every month, like clockwork. What's going to happen when a platoon's strength is cut down significantly, because the female soldiers had to be dusted-off, with sick ******s?

How about when a female soldier and male soldier are supposed to be manning a listening post/observation post and they have ****ing on their mind, rather than doing their job and keeping their comrades alive? People may die, that's what. And, it's gonna happen, let's not kid ourselves.


For the third time, it's nothing to do with ability.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
The ridiculously HIGH rates of male on female domestic abuse would prove otherwise.
So - which is it - they halt all action to run to the aid of the injured princess or they beat her half to death in the privacy of their own homes?

If I had my way only the toughest most bitchingest 'don't touch me!' women would be anywhere near the battlefield.
Click to expand...

You're not comparing like demographics.

Your garden variety wife beating piece-a-**** guy doesn't usually join the military.
 
apdst said:
If a person--male or female--can't do 60 pushups in 2 minutes, then that person probably doesn't have the necessary upper body strength to hump-a-ruck 25 miles and fight a firefight somewhere in between point A and point B.
Click to expand...

This could be, and if so it may very well be a good part of a test for any one to get a combat MOS. However, that is not the point of PFT as it is now.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
You've meet men who didn't make it through boot camp because they weren't strong enough? Are you sure? I saw a few of those that had difficulties but they either got washed back or did remedial traning. The only ones I saw thrown out had physical defects missed in the orginal physicals or punched a drill instructor.

I can see being washed out in Airborne, Rangers, Seals, Special Forces etc. but boot camp?
Click to expand...

I knew a guy that got kicked out of BCT, because he couldn't pass his APFT. He was on third BCT cycle and they finally said **** it and kicked him out.

Which was a shame, I thought, because his MOS was typewriter repair, or some pog other pog ass **** like that.
 
Redress said:
This could be, and if so it may very well be a good part of a test for any one to get a combat MOS. However, that is not the point of PFT as it is now.
Click to expand...

Well, that may be the case in the Navy, but out there where the actual soldiers do their work--in combat arms units--it's a different story.

The Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) is designed to test the muscular strength/endurance and cardiovascular respiratory fitness of soldiers in the United States Army. Soldiers are given a score based on their performance in three events consisting of the push-up (PU), sit-up (SU), and a two-mile run. Possible scores range from 0 to 100 points in each event. A passing score is a total of 180 or higher with a minimum score of 60 in each event. [1] covers the administration of the APFT, as well as ways to conduct individual, squad and unit level physical training (PT) sessions and will be performed by close out formation.

Army Physical Fitness Test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom